Search

Background Total knee replacement (TKR) is an effective and cost-effective strategy for treating end-stage knee osteoarthritis. Greater risk for complications among TKR recipients with a body mass index (BMI) of 40 kg/m2 or greater has raised concerns about the value of TKR in this population. Objective To assess the value of TKR in recipients with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater using a cost-effectiveness analysis. Design Osteoarthritis Policy Model to assess long-term clinical benefits, costs, and cost-effectiveness of TKR in patients with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater. Data sources Total knee replacement parameters from longitudinal studies and published literature, and costs from Medicare Physician Fee Schedules, the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, and published data. Target population Recipients of TKR with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater in the United States. Time horizon Lifetime. Perspective Health care sector. Intervention Total knee replacement. Outcome measures Cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), discounted at 3% annually. Results of base-case analysis Total knee replacement increased QALYs by 0.71 year and lifetime medical costs by $25 200 among patients aged 50 to 65 years with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater, resulting in an ICER of $35 200. Total knee replacement in patients older than 65 years with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater increased QALYs by 0.39 year and costs by $21 100, resulting in an ICER of $54 100. Results of sensitivity analysis In TKR recipients with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater and diabetes and cardiovascular disease, ICERs were below $75 000 per QALY. Results were most sensitive to complication rates and preoperative pain levels. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, at a $55 000-per-QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, TKR had a 100% and 90% likelihood of being a cost-effective strategy for patients aged 50 to 65 years and patients older than 65 years, respectively. Limitation Data are derived from several sources. Conclusion From a cost-effectiveness perspective, TKR offers good value in patients with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater, including those with multiple comorbidities. Primary funding source National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

BACKGROUND: Total knee replacement (TKR) is an effective and cost-effective strategy for treating end-stage knee osteoarthritis. Greater risk of complications among TKR recipients with BMI≥40kg/m(2) has raised concerns regarding the value of TKR in this population. OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of TKR in recipients with BMI≥40kg/m(2) using a cost-effectiveness analysis. DESIGN: Osteoarthritis Policy Model (OAPol) to assess long-term clinical benefits, costs, and cost-effectiveness of TKR in patients with BMI≥40kg/m(2). DATA SOURCES: Longitudinal studies and published literature to obtain TKR parameters, costs from Medicare Physician Fee Schedules, the Health Care Utilization Project, and published data. TARGET POPULATION: TKR recipients with BMI≥40kg/m(2) in the US TIME HORIZON: Lifetime PERSPECTIVE: Healthcare Sector INTERVENTION: TKR OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), discounted at 3%/year RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: TKR increased QALYs by 0.71 and lifetime medical costs by $25,200 among patients with BMI≥40kg/m(2) aged 50–65, resulting in an ICER of $35,200. TKR in patients aged >65 with BMI≥40kg/m(2) increased QALYs by 0.39 and costs by $21,100, resulting in an ICER of $54,100. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: In TKR recipients with BMI≥40kg/m(2) and diabetes and cardiovascular disease, ICERs were below $75,000/QALY. Results were most sensitive to complication rates and preoperative pain levels. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis at a $55,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, TKR had a 100% and 90% likelihood of being a cost-effective strategy for patients aged 50–65 and >65, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Data are derived from multiple sources. CONCLUSION: From a cost-effectiveness perspective, TKR offers good value in patients with BMI≥40kg/m(2), including those with multiple comorbid conditions.